Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:17811-DB CR. APPEAL (DB) NO. 792 OF 2019 1 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 792 of 2019 (Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 22.06.2019 (sentence passed on 24.06.2019) passed by Sri Rama Kant Mishra, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in S.T. Case No. 149/2017.) Joseph Kandulna, S/o Late Kailash Kandulna, R/o Vill- Kadhodih, P.O. & P.S.- Kiriburu, Dist.-West Singhbhum. ... Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … Respondent ---- PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ---- For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. For the State : Spl. P.P. ---- CAV on: 28/04/2026 Pronounced on : 18/06/2026 JUDGMENT Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. : 1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Spl. P.P. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 22-06-2019 (sentence passed on 24-06-2019) passed by Sri Rama Kant Mishra, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in connection with S.T. No. 149/2017, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default in payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Silwanti Kandulna recorded on 21-03-2017 wherein it has been stated that the husband of the informant, namely, Kailash Kandulna Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:17811-DB CR. APPEAL (DB) NO. 792 OF 2019 2 earns his livelihood by working as a labour. All the sons of the informant are unemployed and the eldest son of the informant, Joseph Kandulna is hot headed and creates ugly scenes for one reason or the other. It has been stated that about three days back, Joseph Kandulna had asked for money from his father but he did not succeed as a result of which he had threatened his father with dire consequences. On 20-03-2017 at about 05:00PM, when the informant, her husband and Joseph Kandulna were in the house, Joseph Kandulna out of rage had taken out a danda and had assaulted the husband of the informant on the left side of the head and when the informant tried to save her husband, she was also subjected to assault. It has been alleged that the accused continued to mercilessly assault the husband of the informant as a result of which he died on the spot. Based on the aforesaid allegations Kiriburu P.S. Case No. 01/2017 was instituted under Section 302 IPC. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as S.T. No. 149/2017. Charge was framed against the accused under Section 302 IPC which was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses in support of his case: P.W.1 Silwanti Kandulna is the informant and the wife of the deceased who has stated that on the date of occurrence at 05:00PM, she was in the house along with her husband Kailash Kandulna and son Joseph Kandulna when Joseph Kandulna, all of a sudden, committed assault upon Kailash Kandulna with a danda and when she intervened, she was also subjected to assault. Joseph Kandulna had thereafter once again made an Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:17811-DB CR. APPEAL (DB) NO. 792 OF 2019 3 assault upon Kailash Kandulna which resulted in his death. Joseph Kandulna used to demand money from Kailash Kandulna and on refusal, he used to quarrel with him. She has stated that she had informed the Munda about the incident and in the morning the Police had come and recorded her fardbeyan. She has proved her signature on the fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit-1. She has proved her signature on the seizure list of the seized danda which has been marked as Exhibit-2. In cross-examination, she has deposed that at the time of the incident, only 3 persons of her family including herself were present in the house. There are no houses adjacent to her house. P.W.2 Birajmani Kandulna has stated that Jolen Bhengra had informed her over phone that her elder brother Joseph Kandulna has committed the murder of her father with a danda. When she reached her house at 10:00AM, she found the dead body of her father and her mother had disclosed about Joseph Kandulna committing the murder. In cross-examination, she has deposed that she had not witnessed the incident. P.W.3 Ashok Kandulna is another son of the informant who has stated that at the time of the incident he was working in Talcher, Odisha and on receiving the information from Jolen Bhengra regarding the murder of his father, he had come to his house and saw the dead body of his father. He has proved his signature on the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-3. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not witnessed the incident. P.W.4 Eliyas Jojo has stated that he had received an information in the village about the murder of Kailash Kandulna and when he went to the house of Kailash Kandulna, the wife of Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:17811-DB CR. APPEAL (DB) NO. 792 OF 2019 4 Kailash Kandulna had disclosed about the assault committed by Joseph Kandulna with a danda on her husband. He has proved his signature on the seizure list as well as in the fardbeyan which have been marked as Exhibit-2/1 and 1/1 respectively. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not witnessed the incident. P.W.5 Johan Aaind has stated that Joseph Kandulna had informed him that he has committed the murder of his father. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not seen the incident. P.W.6 Anil Kandeyang has stated that on hearing the news that Joseph Kandulna has committed the murder of his father, he had gone to the house of Kailash Kandulna and had seen his dead body. In cross-examination, he has deposed that at the time of the incident he was working in the mines. P.W.7 Jolen Bhengra has stated that he had gone to the house of Kailash Kandulna and had seen the dead body. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had heard about the incident from the mother of Ashok. He had not witnessed the incident. P.W.8 Ashok Kumar was posted as an Officer-in-charge of Kiriburu P.S. and on 21.03.2017 at 10:00AM, he had received an information that on 20-03-2017 at 05:00PM at village Kadodih, a son has killed his father. After making a station diary entry, he and his police force had gone to the place of occurrence where he had recorded the fardbeyan of Silwanti Kandulna after which he had himself taken over the investigation of the case. He has proved the fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit-4. The inquest report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-5, while the seizure list has been marked as Exhibit-6. The endorsement in the fardbeyan has been marked as Exhibit-4/1 while the Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:17811-DB CR. APPEAL (DB) NO. 792 OF 2019 5 formal FIR has been proved and marked as Exhibit-7. In course of investigation, he had recorded the restatement of the informant and the statements of Ashok Kandulna and Birajmani Kandulna. He had inspected the place of occurrence which is at village Kadodih in the house of the informant surrounded by trees and bushes. He had recorded the statements of other witnesses, had obtained the post mortem report and had thereafter submitted charge sheet. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not mentioned as to whether the seized danda had blood stains or not. There are no houses adjacent to the house of the informant. He had not recorded the confessional statement of the accused. P.W.9 Dr. Shivlal Kunkal was posted as a Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa and on 22-03-2017, he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Kailash Kandulna and had found the following: “Rigor Mortis- Upper and lower limb present. External injuries- Lacerated wound- right frontal of head 1” x ½” x deep to skull bone. Bruise in occipital area of head. Lacerated wound 4” x ½” x deep to bone in right leg below knee joint. Fracture of Tibia and Fibula in upper side. Lacerated wound in left leg above ankle joint with fracture of lower end of Tibia and Fibula in upper side. Internal injury- Head- Frontal and occipital bone fracture with meninges lacerated and pale. Thorax- Fracture of 3rd to 5th ribs both side of chest. Rupture of lungs both sides. Heart- Empty. Abdomen- Stomach empty. Other viscera- NAD. Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:17811-DB CR. APPEAL (DB) NO. 792 OF 2019 6 Time since death- 04 to 36 hours.” The cause of death was opined to be due to shock and hemorrhage on account of assault with hard and blunt substance. The post mortem report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-8. 5. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he has denied his complicity in committing the murder of his father. 6. It has been submitted by Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant that the entire case of the prosecution is based upon the solitary eyewitness account of P.W.1. Such evidence has to be considered with circumspection which the learned trial court has failed to do. P.W.1 was also assaulted by the appellant with a danda but there is not even a whisper about any injuries having been suffered by P.W.1 and as per P.W.8, the danda was produced by P.W.1 after a considerable delay and the said danda did not have any blood stains. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel has submitted an alternative argument to the effect that even if it is assumed that the appellant had committed the assault, the same was not premeditated but was on account of the refusal to give money to the appellant by the deceased which had enraged the appellant and the case would, therefore, fall within the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II IPC. 7. Learned Spl. P.P. has submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 clearly demarcates the role played by the appellant in committing assault upon his father which has also been corroborated by the post-mortem report. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the trial court records. 9. The appellant is alleged to have committed the murder of his father with the help of a danda in presence of his mother. P.W.1 is the sole eyewitness to the occurrence as at the time of Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:17811-DB CR. APPEAL (DB) NO. 792 OF 2019 7 the incident there were no other persons present in the house, except P.W.1, the appellant and the deceased. The house of the informant also appears to be in an isolated place surrounded by trees and bushes with no other house in the vicinity. The evidence of P.W.1 is in commensuration to the details given in her fardbeyan and the indiscriminate assault committed by the appellant upon his father with the danda is fortified by the post- mortem report. The act of the appellant was not an act fueled by an isolated incident, but was an outburst of simmering rage which the appellant was nurturing. The absence of any injury report of the informant would be a mere aberration and cannot be a sufficient ground to disbelieve the testimony of P.W.1. The learned trial court has appropriately considered the evidence on record while convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and having found no material to conclude otherwise, this appeal is dismissed. 10. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands closed. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 18th Day of June, 2026. Preet/N.A.F.R. Uploaded on: 20 /06 /2026.